I rant about translation issues from time to time, and here's a biggie. There are a mess of words and terms in Asian languages that all get translated "mind," "consciousness," "awareness," "thoughts," "heart," "intellect," and what have you. But these words and terms do not all mean the same thing, and most English translations give readers no hint of that.
In the Sutta-pitaka and other early Pali and Sanskrit texts, three words appear frequently that all get translated as "mind" (or heart, or awareness, or intellect, etc.). These are (in Sanskrit) citta, vijnana, and manas. These words really don't mean the exact same thing, but you wouldn't know that from most English translations. And I think understanding the distinctions is helpful.
Part of the confusion is that the old-timers didn't classify mental activities in the same way that we do in the 21st century West, so there is no shorthand English equivalent for what these words mean. I want things to divide neatly into, for example, intellect and logic on one hand and emotive thinking on the other hand, and our three terms don't work that way. In different ways, they all touch on thinking, and they all touch on feelings.
So sorting out the difference isn't simple. But the effort ought to be made.
I spent part of yesterday looking into manas. When you hear that karma is created by body, speech, and mind; or thoughts, words, and deeds (same thing), manas is the word translated as "mind" or "thoughts." Manas also is the mind/heart/thoughts/whatever referenced in the opening verses of the Dhammapada -- e.g., "mind precedes all mental states" (translations vary).
So manas is kind of a big deal. And I've got a supposedly authoritative Dictionary of Buddhism at hand that flat-out defines manas as "intellect." But the longer I looked at it, the less it seemed to be "intellect" to me.
Manas is found in the Vedic religions of India that came before Buddhism, and to the Vedics, manas was thought to be the originator of thoughts and emotions, located in the heart. It is also the foundation of personal identity and atman. So in that tradition, and in modern-day Hindusim, it's something like a soul.
In early Buddhism, manas became something like a sense or system that processes sense-stimulation (sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, awareness) and passes them on to other mental functions, creating concepts. This process, as I understand it, involves both intellect and emotions.
In Yogacara, manas, or manas-vijnana, is the seventh consciousness that generates the illusion of a self. (Some of you probably understand Yogacara better than I do, so please correct me if I'm wrong on this.) If you understand how manas was borrowed from the Vedic traditions, this definition makes sense, I think.
But knowing all this makes me very annoyed at the dictionary-compiler who defined manas as "intellect." Thinking of it only as intellect is unhelpful, IMO.